model mother?

Supermodel Cindy Crawford caused controversy last September by allowing her 5-year-old daughter, Kaya Jordan Gerber, to pose for Melissa Odabash‘s children’s swimwear campaign last summer. It seems like it wouldn’t be a big deal, since it’s for a children’s swimwear campaign, right? Well, the pictures caused controversy because Kaya was wearing a bikini and standing in the typical risque poses that adult models use, not to mention she had a tattoo on her lower back and was posing topless.

I don’t think I even need to explain why this photo is wrong (okay–the toplessness, the lower back tattoo, the coy over-the-shoulder pose–it is basically child pornography). So it’s not surprising to see why the pictures generated controversy–nary a week later, they were taken off Odabash’s website. Furthermore, Crawford’s representative claimed that

“Cindy’s friends own this company. It was just a fun little photo shoot they did in Malibu one day. Kaya is not modeling.”

Which is, um, a total lie. But anyway, I’m glad to see that the sexualization of young girls hasn’t gone so far that people don’t even realize that it’s wrong anymore. In other words, even if parents themselves see no problem with sexualizing their daughters, at least other people in our society, like the ones that got Odabash to take the pictures off her website, do.

ya thats wrong but what is reelly rong s she might end pregnant by age 12 and her myspace prengant photo will be considered child porn wth no nudity no suggestive poses just a 12 year old 9 month pregnant and no way to hide it

it is a hard pill to swallow but we have a sexualized every thing and if just the prescience of a 12 year old girl turn someone on how could she leave the house

Just a photo shoot does not make a kid “pregnent”. When are we going to leave this histaria. I was in modeling when I was a kid and I know how ridiculous people can get when it comes to child modeling. There are nudist kids all over the world being topless. (even botomless) And when it comes to modeling, they even critisize our heels and hearcut.

Just a photo shoot does not make a kid “pregnent”. When are we going to leave this histaria. I was in modeling when I was a kid and I know how ridiculous people can get when it comes to child modeling. There are nudist kids all over the world being topless. (even botomless) And when it comes to modeling, they even critisize our heels and hearcut.

Ya know, I this country was so hung up on the naked body, none of this would be an issue.
No matter what laws you pass, there are going to be nasty people out there that’ll take advantage of kids.
I think both pics of Kaya are cute, and the topless one just looks like a lil girl having fun. Just like most of us did on a hot summer day running in the sprinklers.
Wrap your kid in a burka, and teach her to be ashamed of her body? Na, I’d rather have my daughter (or son) being comfortable in her own skin.
Protect from sexual preditors, yes. Deny the fredom and fun that it is to be a kid, no.

ok ok… the person who put this up in the first place is a dumbass… nothing is porn without sex of some kind, before that its just a nude pic, although this is different with child porn which is all in one category cause its illegal… either way this is now porn… say you could see nipple or other area then yes… it would be but this is not yet porn.

Im 14 years old and I dont see whats wrong with being naked, I think that sexual harrassment begins with the persons own uncomfurability with their body. To summarize, if people werent so hung up over this shit then there would be no sexual harrassment because there would be nothing to be ashamed about!

I know for a fact that someone is probably going to bash this post, in fact this may be removed within a day, either way all those who read this, I hope you understood my opinion.

I agree with “points out the obvious” and her opinion. And you’ll notice that she’s 14, and doesn’t believe all the crap that the author of the article has been trying to push on her for years. A girls back is child porn? What kind of over-emotional over reaction is that? Any part of the body that God created that is clothed is now porn? How about the last line where the author says if parents don’t think “sexualization” of their kids is bad, than others (we) do. Who in the hell do you think you are to tell others how to raise their kids?! So much for the “land of the free”. Here’s an idea, how about all the people that feel like the author does pick up and move to Iran? That way you can impose your beliefs on everyone else and be told how to act, and what to wear, and you’ll never ever see the nude back of anyone ever again! There, now you can be happy! And you can leave the US to those of us that respect individual rights. Ugh, morons….

Seriously, what is the world coming to? I recently had some pictures of my kids developed at a big name photo place, and discovered, upon opening, that 3 or 4 were missing, they were of the kids playing in the yard, naked, under the sprinklers, I thought they were cute. Apparently someone decided they were porn. “We’re sorry, we have a strict policy about developing “those” types of photographs” My kids are 3 and 4. Sigh, just waiting for the FBI to come break down my door.
When I was a kid, every parent had a picture of their kid, naked, on a rug. We used to laugh at them.

I agree that fake tattoo was ridiculous and stupid by Cindy Crawford. The photo may not technically be porn, but the suggestive look is also wrong. I don’t have a problem with “Walgreens” or some other outlet refusing to develop photos of naked kids. They don’t know the motives of their customers, so they take the safe route. That is to be commended, not bashed. They also have to protect themselves, legally.

Prohibition and Drugs prove that making something illeagle will not stop it. If this picture is Porn, which I beleave is in the eye of the beholder, than what about child ads? I beleave that the only wrong done was making it public. Parents need to think
|
April 11, 2008 at 8:24 am
|
Reply

Prhibition and Drugs prove that making something illeagle does not stop it. As to “Porn”, I beleave it is in the mind and eye of the individual. IF this picture is porn to someone they should check themselves. I do not beleave this picturf should have been made public. It is like parents showing the Bear Skin Rug Pictures some of us had taken of us to anyone. Its embarassing. There will always be, unfortunatly, people who view Children Sexually. Parents need to keep that in mind when they are doing things that involve their Children.

i have served my country for many years now, and i have seen many friends die for freedom. i hope that may count for something when i say that america is not free. Somewhere along the line americans seem to have picked up the right not to be offended. An imaginary right that seems to override all others, such as freedom of speech, etc. America is not free and the marines cannot guard against such silly injustices. Only the voice of the people can stop somehing like this. So stand and speak. Tell the world we’ve had enough bullshit. If not for yourself, then for the countless souls fallen in the line of duty so that you may have a voice at all.

WTF? If this is porn, then, what is next? un-clowning Ronald McDonald as to not offend clown-a-phobics? I have a dress-up picture of me when I’m 5 in like stockings and heels, does that mean I’m a prostitute? I have another knee deep in snow, does that mean I’m a downhill skiier? People, people, has no one noticed that nowhere is free? We’re in a time where, here in England, some counties won’t sing the nursery song ‘Ba ba black sheep’ for fear of racial hatred, we cant have naked pics of our three year olds processed because that makes us paedophiles, and our most famous tabloid/rag newspaper, The Sun, is now printed in Polish. Polish, I ask you, that’s like the New York Times being printed in Hebrew! Free is relative. Free is something in the mind. Free as a nation is un reachable. Marine, you have my thanks, my respect and my endless gratitude, in a world where ‘Americas Got Talent’ tv show gets more coverage than your fallen comrades I for one salute you.

Isn’t it interesting that this picture shows absolutely nothing at all and has raised such a ruckus. I have to wonder if all of this anger comes simply from the fact that this girl is the daughter of Cindy Crawford. Now people, put on your imagination caps. Imagine a dog tugging on this little girls underwear and showing half of her rear end. I know! its totally sick! oh my! Yes well, its on a billion bottles of suntan lotion for children.

Now seriously people, that image that we all have burned into our minds is one of the cutest ploys to create brand recognition in American history. Why is it that it comes from a time when Americans were suppose to be even more sexually repressed than they are now! No, the problem is not with the AD, or with the image of Cindy’s Daughter. Its not sexual until you take your own issues and attach sex to it. Yes, there are pedophiles out there that would no doubt look at this photo inappropriately, but I would also like to point out the it is the equivalent of withdrawing all photos peoples feet because there a people out there with a foot fetish that would look at them inappropriately. Maybe the answer could be to not to take away the rights of sexually healthy Americans, but maybe America could continue and radically change how its laws and policy’s contribute to the problem of sexually sick people. All anyone has to do is look around the world. Lets start with Amsterdam in the Netherlands. I will let you do your own research, you wouldn’t believe me anyhow, but they are much much healthier sexually than we are because they do not repress it. They do not have the rapists, the pedophiles, the abusers in all categories that we have here. The answer is not more rules as our religious, closed minded, arrogant leaders would have us believe. I honestly believe that 50 to 70 percent of the problems in America are religion based and to be specific about it, Christians are the worst. Thinking that their morals and their interpretations are the only way, the godly way, and then condemn all others for theirs. So much for a separation of church and state, and so much for the freedom of religion, unless of course your christian, then its OK. If the Christian leaders would quit trying to control every little thing we see and do, well, maybe we could aspire to be a little more like the European countries that have such little trouble. That is indubitably not going to happen because that would be against their religion. At any rate people, just live and let live for Pete’s sake. Cindy is obviously not abusing her daughter and that is all that really matters here. Chances are she will grow to be a healthy beautiful woman that has very few sexual hangups. This is NOT the case with victims of child porn.

First off are people were having sex with kids as far back as ancient Egypt. Second the goverment only made it illegal to have sex with kids because the larger sized penis of an adult (compared to that of a kid) caused damage to the small vagina of young girls. Third is the fact that most people who are sexually attracted to children (or pedophiles for short) wouldn’t go after children as much if it were not illegal. This is because humans wnat what they can’t have, or that which is considered forbidden. Next, most kids lose their virginity at or around the age of 12 normally to kids there same age. I’m getting bored of ranting so the last thing is what you humans call wrong as far as mental behaviors and sexual prefences are natural when it comes to life and nature. I almost forgot I willj udge the humans living in this world soon and kill all those unworthy to live. Til judgement day, farewell.

you’re an idiot. look up the definition of pornography and explain to me exactly how this qualifies. WHERES THE SEX?!?! there isn’t any! there is not arguement here. leave it alone. just because when you see a picture like this YOU think sex, doesn’t mean everyone else does. i think she’s quite cute, FOR A CHILD! thats about as far as it goes. paedos are gonne be how they are nomatter what. no reason to be a fascist douche.

The problem with all this child porn nonsence is that it comes from two different angles that are switched to suit the purpose. The first and perfectly reasonable one is the protection of children from expolitation and deals with the harm done to children who end up as subjects of pornography. The controversy comes when trying to show that the child was harmed by it. I would like to see anyone try and argue that the child is harmed by this or similar pictures. Being embarassed is not the point, most people get embarrased looking back at older photos of themselves yet most are fully clothed.Perhaps we should ban any photography, video or audio (as most people are embarassed by their voice) of anyone under 18.
The second side is the “gateway” aspect of looking turning into touching. The idea is that a pedophile would look at a picture like this and go out and molest children. This means any photo of a child that could be sexually suggestive is wrong. For a start, why does looking at a sexually sugestive image of a child make a pedo want to go out and rape a child, when a sexually suggestive image of an adult woman (which would be perfectly legal and barely even noticed) doesn’t make men want to go out and sexually abuse women. Perhaps the same people who use this argument would like all porn banned and all women to be wearing veils. Secondly where does something become sexual. Since most people’s sexual encounters begin with both people fully clothed, it’s hard to argue that a fully clothed person doesn’t have sexual connotations. Actually I know I often find someone wearing less revealing clothes to be more of a turn on as it’s like a mystery parcel waiting to be unwrapped. As others have said, people have different turn ons too, remember that faces play a big part in attraction. Veils for children?

Thank you for posting this. You have raised a good point of view and started a debate- with interesting results. I read a lot of the comments here, some I agree with, some raised my eyebrows and some are just totally disgusting. I’m glad that my fellow teenagers are aware of the effects of the media and hypersexualization- but why don’t you post anything new anymore?!

P.S. Kaya isn’t even wearing swimming shorts here. I don’t understand how this sells the shorts. Does Kaya look like she’s having fun? If you are to sell kids’ swimsuits- you should show pictures of kids having fun in the water like kids do- jumping into lakes, diving into pools and splashing and laughing.

Pornography is defined as writings, pictures, films, etc. designed to stimulate sexual excitement. The sex doesn’t need to be explicit. Of course there’s nothing wrong with taking pictures of your own children because you think it’s funny or cute. The problem is is that this is for an ad campaign and these pictures were being made public, thus pedophiles could have access to them. They were being posted on an open website where anyone could view them, not being kept in a private photo album in a home or on facebook. Points out the obvious, slap yourself please. I became uncomfortable with my body BECAUSE I was sexually harassed. I wasn’t sexually harassed because I was uncomfortable with my body before hand. It’s so hurtful and so demeaning and it happened to me when I was nine because I developed early. It ruined my perception of myself for years. Don’t make light of what happens to girls and women at the hands of people who want to hurt them.

Attn: Aaron. Your Coppertone reference is more relevant than you think. Look at an old ad – from, say, the early to mid ’60’s – and then look at a current one. The difference? Much less baby-butt showing, because Coppertone was forced to re-do their painting because of complaints from idiots about “kiddie porn”. NO, I’m not kidding – “public pressure” forced them to “sanitize” the harmless and cute ad with which we were all familiar. There are sick people in this country who prey on children, but they are no sicker than the ones who find any skin “pornographic”. Even the Victorian era wasn’t as uptight as America currently is.

Why are you concerned about how a girl (or boy, for that matter) poses? Are you these children’s parents? No? Then mind your own business. When you are the child’s parent, or on the editorial staff of a publication to which these photos are submitted, then you can vocalize your opinions and concerns on these issues. Until then, find some way to occupy your time in a way which doesn’t include propping your ladder upon the backs of others in an obnoxious attempt to claim a moral high ground.
America has long bullied the world with its opinions on democracy, freedom, drugs and sexuality. Ironically, it is America where democracy is most polluted by corruption, freedom is illusory as it’s agencies spy upon everyone, they alternate between draconian penalties for minor drug charges – only to then swing 180 degrees to legalize those same drugs (when the promise of reaping millions of dollars in taxation suddenly makes it okay). And lastly, America’s perennial neo-Victorian opinions on matters of sexuality would be laughable, if they didn’t ruin so many people’s lives when they haughtily force those unrealistic opinions on others. Again, ironically, America takes such a Puritan public stance on sexuality, yet behind closed doors, is one of the most perverted civilizations on the planet.
Please, keep your moral attitudes within the confines of your own house walls. You aren’t living our lives, we don’t need your guidance. Get a life.